Syria’s Reconciliation Agreements By Raymond Hinnebusch and Omar Imady Local truces in the Syrian conflict, what the regime called reconciliation (muslaha) agreements and the great powers later termed de-escalation or deconfliction zones have varied, over time, largely according to the changing balance of power. They ranged from compromises in which after a cease fire opposition fighters remained involved in security and governance roles in their areas, to cases of virtual opposition surrender involving evacuations of fighters or even whole populations. The Context Shaping “Reconciliation:” the Changing Balance of Power The Syrian government and opposition force had, from quite early on, negotiated truces in limited areas, but greater impetus was given to this by growing incapacity of either side to win the war. The regime, facing manpower shortages that precluded the re-conquest of opposition areas, took the lead in trying, instead, to impose settlements piece by piece on the arenas on the margins of government controlled areas where opposition concentrations were most threatening. The truces reflected and formalized the reality of a war of attrition, in which advances are incremental and difficult to hold, tending to fragment control. Also, the failure of national level “top-down” political negotiations, notably Geneva II, led the third UN mediator, Stephan DeMistura to propose in November 2014 less ambitious bottom up local truces in order to reduce the violence and in the hopes these would acquire momentum enabling national level negotiations stalemate to be overcome (Beals 2017). The shifting balance of power tended to determine the pace and kind of agreement. In the Damascus area, the regime benefited from the opposition’s fragmentation, inability to coordinate combined offensives and vulnerability to being picked off one by one. Populations became alienated as opposition fighters failed to shield people from the regime’s sieges and air assaults as well as by their infighting over control of supplies and access points, personal power and doctrinal differences (among Islamists). (Glass 2017; Lund, 2017b). Another factor was the co- optation of opposition FSA forces by Jordan and Turkey, to secure their borders and fight IS and PYD rather than Asad. Most notably, the Russian intervention, the fall of Aleppo and Turkey’s realignment with Russia, giving up on the goal of overthrowing Asad, set up a certain bandwagoning toward the apparently winning regime side. (Samaha 2017). When surveyed as to why the opposition was accepting deals with the regime, respondents cited relief from sieges, bringing security, declining prospect of military victory over the regime and an opportunity to re- coup arms. (Turkmani and Kaldour 2014). After years of unrest, massacres and deadlocks, public opinion seems to shift in favour of the security and safety which the regime could deliver (Lakitsch 2017). After its 2015 intervention, Russia’s strategy started to dominate the settlement process. Moscow proposed “de-escalation/de-confliction zones” to contain the conflict. The medium-term goal would be something resembling post-civil war Bosnia, with government and opposition forces responsible for security in their own areas. (Memorandum; Applying Bosnia Model). In the shorter term, getting the moderate fighters to accept de-escalation would in practice bring them to accept the Asad regime and, at times, allow them to be used against the jihadists. At the Astana meeting, the 13 armed factions, having suffered battlefield losses, especially in Aleppo and loss of backing from Turkey, were brought, albeit unwillingly, into the negotiations over what became the Astana agreement, (AP 2017). It specified four de-escalation zones-- northern Homs, Ghouta, south Dera/Quneitra and Idlib and parts of neighbouring provinces. Not only would fighting stop in these areas, but the government was obliged to allow humanitarian aid, restore public services and allow refugees to return; also having little choice, Damascus said that although it would abide by the agreement, it would continue fighting "terrorism" –a label it applies to all armed rebel groups. Opposition militants recognized the agreement aimed to split the FSA from the jihadists, thus divide the opposition to Assad’s benefit. Russia, Turkey and Iran were to provide forces to police the ceasefire, although agreement over the details was not reached. The Putin-Trump pact — detailed in a Memorandum of Principle for De-escalation in Southern Syria — established a similar cease-fire between Syrian government forces and armed opposition in southern Syria that 1 would maintain the existing division of control between the two sides, though, unlike Astana, it did not recognize any role for Iran, directly or indirectly (i.e. Hizbullah), in securing this agreement. In essence, the military opposition has come to terms with the fact that it must separate from the jihadist groups, that it must come to terms with a heavy Russian role and presence because the alternative is Iran, and that changing the Asad regime is, at the very least, no longer achievable in the short run. The ‘deconfliction zones’ constitute the only tangible ‘achievement’ the opposition can claim on the ground, since they are in theory areas which are not completely under government control, and yet under some form of international protection. Because these zones are only clearly defined in terms of the areas they cover, rather than in actual nature, both the regime and the opposition will attempt to impose their respective modes of governance and security. Regime Discourse The Syrian government professes to follow a policy of dialogue regarding political reform with all domestic parties “which rejected foreign interference and violence, “ while combating foreign- backed insurgencies. Following the failed Geneva II conference in which it claims the “foreign – backed opposition” excluded itself from the reform process, internal dialogue was asserted to be the only viable peaceful exit from the conflict. (SANA 2014; nsnbc international, 2014) National reconciliation was a “ strategic vision” articulated by President Bashar al-Asad (al-Baath Newspaper). The government established a Ministry of National Reconciliation in 2012 under Ali Haidar who claims successful conclusion 50 reconciliation projects as of September 30, 2015 (Stone 2016). The strategy was to separate the foreign fighters from Syrian fighters and the “terrorists” from moderate fighters who could be “brought to their senses.”(Adleh and Favier 2017). He presented a benign representation of the process: the ministry selects influential local people to form a committee of reconciliation which contacts the fighters and offers safe passage out of the area for those fighters who refuse reconciliation and amnesty for those who lay down their arms. The latter are invited to join the army and many, the regime claims, do so. President Assad granted blanket amnesties eight times in the last five years for a total of about 20,000 former Syrian “mercenaries.” In July 2016, Assad issued Legislative Decree No. 15, the legal basis for ‘reconciliation,’ which includes amnesty for those who ‘turn themselves in and lay down their weapons.’ (Ezzi, 2017). Opposition supporters are guaranteed the right to work with the (unarmed) Syrian internal opposition. The Syrian media conveyed the view that the people in opposition controlled areas wanted (SANA, Oct 2015) to embrace national reconciliation, but were afraid of violent reprisal from terrorist organizations. Reconciliation would boost trust between citizens and officials, settle the legal status of youths who decided to lay down their weapons, address the issue of missing people, and enable humanitarian aid. “Reconciliations are doing very well now,” said President Assad’s adviser, Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban. “And there are many areas in the pipeline. We feel that this is the best way to end the war.”(Glass 2017) How does the regime see the cumulative outcome of reconciliation? Legislative Decree 107, has been said to provide a potential framework for a post- conflict devolution of political authority that will allow all sides of the conflict to retain some degree of control over the areas under their jurisdiction; yet, it also grants wide powers and to a presidential appointed governor at the province level (Aarabi 2017). Giving the present alternatives, that may well be an ideal outcome allowing at least some power-sharing. Regime Strategy However People’s Assembly speaker Hadiyah Abbas gave a more realistic assessment in describing reconciliation as a way “to enhance the victories achieved by the Syrian Arab Army against the terrorist organizations.” (SANA, Sept 2016). Indeed, sources close to the regime see reconciliation as part of a sophisticated regime survival strategy. This strategy combines negotiations with the opposition, with the unrestrained use of force, (relying on Russia for diplomatic protection at the UNSC against international reaction) reflecting the regime view that one can never negotiate from weakness. However, faced with manpower constraints, rather than risk significant regime causalities, the regime came to pursue a policy of siege and waiting until the villages or towns are finally ready to capitulate (which the older notables would pressure the 2 fighters to accept.). The state security system, armed with intelligence files amassed over generations, knew its enemies and their vulnerabilities. Discovering that no tactic worked